(March 6, 2016 at 12:17 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You are confusing a constant conjunction for a principle that denotes a causal relationship.What is the cause of life? It is life of course. There is definitely a cause and effect relationship here.
(March 6, 2016 at 12:17 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: If there is some reason life comes only from life, you might have a candidate for a natural law, but as yet you have nothing but their constant conjunction.You are being too philosophical here. Let's use a modern definition of "law,"
"A general principle, formula, or rule describing a phenomenon in mathematics, science, philosophy, etc: the laws of thermodynamics." Dictionary.com
The phenomenon in question is the cause of life and the rule is that all "life comes from life." How does that not qualify as law, given that it is a fixed relationship?
(March 6, 2016 at 12:17 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: If life did arise from non-life, then the conjunction isn't even constant. But you are declaring that the conjunction is constant,The conjunction as you put it, appears to be constant now, and has been for thousands of years. As a Christian I don't believe the conjunction was always that way otherwise I would be denying that God made Adam from the dust.
(March 6, 2016 at 12:17 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: so you are declaring that life never came from non-life, and that is begging the question.Not at all. In the beginning God created life from the dust and then imbued all life with the capacity to reproduce after its own kind. This became the rule, or the law of how life was continued from that point on. There really is no conflict.
Tell me, if you believe in abiogenesis without there being any scientific proof of it, how is that not faith?
